Leadership in Government Agencies, Research Paper Example

Abstract

Various styles and theories of leadership have been developed in the last century.  Businesses have changed their approaches to leadership over the years in an effort to produce the most favorable performance results.  Conversely, government agencies have place less emphasis on leadership styles due to a number of factors including a rigid emphasis on funding-based metrics and other political factors.  A changing economy and sheer necessity have prompted many government agencies to re-think their positions about leadership.  Many are starting to embrace a more participatory leadership style.

Organizational Theory – Leadership in Government Agencies

In recent decades, the style of organizational leadership has changed.  These changes evolved primarily in the private sector as businesses sought to improve productivity through improved management styles.  While there are various models of leadership, most can be divided into two categories relating to either task or people orientation.  The later is generally considered to be superior within most organizational contexts.

There are four primary theories defining organizational leadership.  These are Trait Theory, Behavioral Theory, Contingency Theory, and Transformational Theory.  Understanding leadership in any organization (including government agencies) requires a basic knowledge of each theory.

Trait Theory asserts that leaders are “born” with inherent leadership traits.  These personality traits might include assertiveness, decisiveness, ambition, and self-confidence.  Championed in the writings of Thomas Carlyle and Francis Galton in the mid 1800’s, trait theory is based on the notion that most great leaders share common personality characteristics, thus a person with those same characteristics would be a natural leader.

The Behavioral Theory of leadership is just the opposite of trait theory.  The behavioral theory suggests that leaders can be made.  This theory defines various aspects of effective leadership and proposed that these aspects are skill sets that can be learned.  Popularized in the late 1930’, behavioral theory was the first to specifically identify the relationship between task and people orientation.  Developed by Blake and Mouton, the Managerial Grid places managers along two axes.  The first axis is concern for tasks and the second is concern for people (Nwlink, 2010).

The Contingency Theory suggests that there is really no “best” way to lead.  As the name suggests, leadership style is contingent on the personality of the leader, the characteristics of the followers, the type of organization, and the consideration of transient variables as they occur.

Developed in 1978 by James MacGregor Burns, Transformational Leadership Theory is based on a manner of leading whereby “leaders and followers help each other to advance to a higher level of morale and motivation” (SBP, 2010).  This style of leadership recognized the importance of caring for the individual and collective wellbeing of the organization as well as achievement of the organization’s goals.  Transformational leaders develop organizational goals and work to “sell” a belief in those goals to the followers.  This is probably the most prominent leadership style in corporate America today.

Leadership in Government Agencies

Management and leadership in government agencies tend to differ from the approaches found in the private sector.  One contributing factor may well lay in the history of governmental agencies.  The largest and oldest government agency is the military.  At the very core of this organization’s structure is a hierarchical chain of command.  The military is not a “democracy” and the “population” is not consulted in determining the goals and objectives of the organization.  Orders are given, and summarily followed.  It stands to reason that other governmental entities may have followed suit with this model.

Governmental agencies tend to follow the structure of the government itself.  The federal government had a president (the boss), a vice-president, cabinet members, senators, congressmen, and so on.  Each layer of the government is in essence “subject to” the layer above it.  In that the leaders of these sections are elected, politics plays a significant role in leadership style.  It is not uncommon for decisions to be made based on political considerations rather on what is best for the agency itself.

In his article, Blunt (2010) articulates a number of issues regarding governmental leadership.  These include the ability to arrange subordinate’s schedules around the leader, having a contingent of subordinates seeing to the leader’s needs, special parking or seating at functions, and other trappings of power.

Leaders within government agencies are also subject to political pressure.  This pressure can come not only from the threat of losing one’s job at the next election, but also from the need to grant audiences and perhaps favors to those who might be able to financially help secure that job during the election.  Another pressure is the very nature of politics.  The political machine runs on compromise and symbiotic favors.  In essence, “I will help you with this project, if you will support me in getting such-and-such done.”

In his article, Behn (2006) writes about the fact that most government agencies are driven by performance metrics.  For many of these agencies the accomplishment of the metrics and is central to the management and leadership styles that ensue.  Funding plays a large part in these agencies.  Government agencies are financed with tax dollars that are limited, thus competition between agencies for funding is ever-present.  When funds are allocated to a particular agency, they usually come with definitive outcome expectations.  Often, agency leaders do not get to develop their own goals and outcome expectations, but are told what those must be.

Unfortunately, the heavy emphasis on metrics tends to precipitate a directive leadership style rather than a participatory one.  It would be unusual to find a transformational leadership model being implemented in a governmental agency.  Agency leaders tend to be more concerned with achievement of tasks leading to accomplishment of a goal, than in nurturing the wellbeing of the agency and its staff.

This is unfortunate.  Businesses used to embrace a similar style, but have come to learn that happy employees are productive employees.  Corporate culture is a very important component of most companies.  Many pride themselves in being on a “best places to work” list, or in their commitment to “giving back” through charity or community service.  One would be hard-pressed to find a government agency with such values.

The Future of Leadership in Government Agencies

The recent economic recession has hit government agencies with the same resulting problems as the private sector has experienced.  Layoffs are commonplace and the remaining personnel have to perform more tasks with fewer resources.  These changes have forced many agencies to re-think their management and leadership styles.  As their shrinking workforce becomes more stressed, agencies will have to start responding to the personal and emotional needs of those remaining.

Many supervisors also have to perform some of the tasks once delegated to subordinates.  Their motives may be based on necessity rather than altruism, but the resulting pattern is becoming more aligned with the concept of “servant leadership.”  Managers, supervisors, and agency leaders are being forced into participatory leadership due to the economy.  Perhaps with time, habits will form and agencies will adopt transformational leadership styles as a matter of choice.  It works in the private sector.  Perhaps it will work in the public sector as well.

References

(Behn R 2006121 Metric Misgivings: the link between measurements and accomplishment isn’t all that obvious)Behn, R. (2006, December 1). Metric Misgivings: the link between measurements and accomplishment isn’t all that obvious. Retrieved from http://www.hks.harvard.edu/news-events/news/commentary/metric-misgivings

(Blunt R 2010 success of leaders)Blunt, R. (2010). The success of leaders. Retrieved from http://govleaders.org/successes.htm

(Nwlink 2010 Concepts of leaders)Nwlink. (2010). Concepts of leaders. Retrieved from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/leadcon.html

(Sbp 2010 Transformational leadership)SBP. (2010). Transformational leadership. Retrieved from the Small Business Pro website: http://www.smallbusinesspro.co.uk/marketing/transformational-leadership.html